Oh I don't know how many it takes. HDR can be done with 7 images or 28 images. I'm sure the iPhone takes a small amount.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"HDR is disgusting and it needs to die, it's worse than lens flares."
- Thread starter Blackberryroid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh I don't know how many it takes. HDR can be done with 7 images or 28 images. I'm sure the iPhone takes a small amount.
I need an in-between option. HDR in and of itself is just fine. I took some great HDR photos of my friends place so he could sell it. What is sickening is all the extreme things people do to photos at the same time they do HDR; they tend to oversaturate and kick up the contrast too high.
----------
HDR can be done with as few as 2 images, but typically you would use 3 or more. I believe the iPhone uses 2 or 3.
----------
HDR can be done with as few as 2 images, but typically you would use 3 or more. I believe the iPhone uses 2 or 3.
I won't say I use it daily or it's the best feature, but any photographer that say's it crap is a joke. I don't know any/many photographers that don't use Photoshop or some software to manipulate their photo's to get the desired results. If a purist is taking pics on 35mm film and hates it, I get that, but anyone using a DSLR or digital format is a hypocrite for saying HDR is not a legit means of digitally enhancing a photo. It just happens to be in camera edited automatically vs dumped into a Photoshop type program.
Tell them the view must be nice on their high horse, but they are full of $%@T.
Tell them the view must be nice on their high horse, but they are full of $%@T.
Some details are lost in the middle, when the sun's light is being reflected. And the detail is also lost in the dark parts. You might want to take 5 pictures and put them together.
Yes and no. HDR is not used by every DSLR user by any means. But I do agree it's a legit means of enhancing a photo. However, what's happened lately is people have been pushing it to the extremes and overcooking their photos. Some of the most popular HDR plugins to LR oversaturate and turn up the contrast too high be default. This has resulted in a lot of really extreme (and subjectively ugly) HDR photos out there. I believe that most photographers, when saying they hate HDR, are responding to this recent trend.
This.
HDR is like sharpening. When used properly and subtley, it's seamless...you don't even notice it. When abused, it's an eyesore.
.HDR is actually called the radiance format, and I know that because I'm a big nerd
. Spherical hdri is used in CG rendering quite often for lighting or generating indirect reflections. This means you'd need a full panorama, but the range + potential to linearize gamma makes it quite effective for this stuff.Ehh.. I don't think anyone can remain steady that long.
That's not necessarily hdr. I can see a lot of composite work. On the portraits you can get a lot of that just via painting it in post. You just have to be reasonably good at painting and masking. Stuff on location looks to me like he prepared the backgrounds separately, but I'll bet you the majority of what you see as hdr is just lighting being accentuated in post. It's very typical.
HDR. It's like this.
It's not a bad idea in concept, but a lot of people really, really give it a bad name.
HDR isn't crap, but auto-HDR is.
I'd also say that auto-exposure is crap...I run my camera in manual mode...but that doesn't mean I think that exposure is wrong. Just that you should do it yourself and not let the computer do it.
HDR is like that too. I think it's a really cool technique but pretty useless on the iPhone.
It's like any other tool. There are good examples and there are terrible examples. Judging something based only on poor examples seems silly to me.
:lol:
You hit the nail on the head. HDR is a technique which when used tastefully yields good results. My favorite HDRs are those which you wouldn't identify as such at first sight.
Most people improperly identify Tone Mapping as HDR.
Tone Mapping is what gives an HDR photo those garish and surreal colors, like this:
![The-Old-Rock-Schoolhouse.jpg]()
The method of HDR used in the iPhone combines 3 exposures (one bright, one middle, one dark) into one photo which does its best to reproduce detail across a wide range (High Dynamic Range) of lighting conditions.
HDR is **** for low light because it doesn't do anything. HDR is used to photograph things of strongly varying brightnesses, such as the inside of a tunnel on a bright sunny day. Normal photography methods would either overexpose to get the detail in the tunnel, making the outside white, or underexpose, bringing out the detail of the outside, but rendering the tunnel completely black. HDR does both and combines them.
The effect can sometimes look surreal, but without Tone Mapping in the process, you'll never get such overblown colors as the above image, and most people would never notice the difference, except maybe the fact that the HDR image seems a bit "flatter" or "brighter." (assuming there are no ghosting artifacts)
Tone Mapping is what gives an HDR photo those garish and surreal colors, like this:
The method of HDR used in the iPhone combines 3 exposures (one bright, one middle, one dark) into one photo which does its best to reproduce detail across a wide range (High Dynamic Range) of lighting conditions.
HDR is **** for low light because it doesn't do anything. HDR is used to photograph things of strongly varying brightnesses, such as the inside of a tunnel on a bright sunny day. Normal photography methods would either overexpose to get the detail in the tunnel, making the outside white, or underexpose, bringing out the detail of the outside, but rendering the tunnel completely black. HDR does both and combines them.
The effect can sometimes look surreal, but without Tone Mapping in the process, you'll never get such overblown colors as the above image, and most people would never notice the difference, except maybe the fact that the HDR image seems a bit "flatter" or "brighter." (assuming there are no ghosting artifacts)
You don't with ios6 it does the shot in 0.5 seconds
----------
Yep it's 3. Under exposed, normal and over
Just about HDR on the iPhone ... it can be quite useful to have it switched on. I find that in some cases, i.e. areas with strong light or heavy shadows, it can provide a decent picture where the non-HDR is unsalvageable. In other cases, the HDR is generally inferior as it can emphasise shake and the colours can be a bit weird.
Everything can be overdone or used in the wrong way. HDR is no exception. Artificial/added lens flare is much worse and cheesy looking
HDR... Just another tool in the photographic toolbox. Of course, some tools are more useful than others...
![scoffeepot.jpg]()
It's all in how it's used. It can be used wonderfully or it can be abused, like any other technique.
Time and a place for HDR. Generally speaking I've found it very good for dramatic landscapes, but also very easy to push a bit too far.....
Examples im pleased with:
![]()
Waxham Breakwater by simbojono, on Flickr
![]()
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr
But for some things its just not so good......
![]()
glade 2012 HDR dance off by simbojono, on Flickr
![]()
Untitled_HDR7 by simbojono, on Flickr
As for the OP saying talking about photographers saying HDR is the scurge of god, its worth remembering that photographers do have a habit of getting very stuck in their ways, and a lot of the ones I know are very opinionated (in all fairness a lot of them would rather spend their time telling you they're a photographer, rather than actually taking photos).
Everythings good in moderation, I've seen some amazing HDR shots, I've also seen a good share of absolutely horrible ones. So im on the fence a bit.
BTW the iphone HDR is 2 shots
Examples im pleased with:
Waxham Breakwater by simbojono, on Flickr
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr
But for some things its just not so good......
glade 2012 HDR dance off by simbojono, on Flickr
Untitled_HDR7 by simbojono, on Flickr
As for the OP saying talking about photographers saying HDR is the scurge of god, its worth remembering that photographers do have a habit of getting very stuck in their ways, and a lot of the ones I know are very opinionated (in all fairness a lot of them would rather spend their time telling you they're a photographer, rather than actually taking photos).
Everythings good in moderation, I've seen some amazing HDR shots, I've also seen a good share of absolutely horrible ones. So im on the fence a bit.
BTW the iphone HDR is 2 shots
HDR itself is a great technique. The problem is when the finished product looks like a Thomas Kincaid painting, which I find loathsome.
HDR is nice when used "responsibly." Same with tilt shift.
I hate "miniaturized" photos and camo-toned HDR, fake tilt shift and HDR looks pretty bad. But properly done it looks good.
Using HDR to properly expose everything while making everything in focus is closest to how your eye would see things in real life since as you look around your eye adjusts to the exposure. Its like going back to paintings where the artist painted what they saw.
I hate "miniaturized" photos and camo-toned HDR, fake tilt shift and HDR looks pretty bad. But properly done it looks good.
Using HDR to properly expose everything while making everything in focus is closest to how your eye would see things in real life since as you look around your eye adjusts to the exposure. Its like going back to paintings where the artist painted what they saw.
Last edited: